Indonesia: Left debates how to challenge the neoliberal regime

More than 2500 people from the Volunteers of People’s Struggle for the
Liberation of Motherland (SPARTAN) held a festive anti-neoliberalism
protest in front of the National Election Commission on July 1 in
Jakarta. The multi-sector coalition, initiated by the People’s Democratic Party
(PRD) to intervene in the 2009 election, held similar protests
involving more than 1200 people in Makassar on the island of Sulawesi. Hundreds rallied in Surabaya, Medan, Lampung, and protests occurred in 11 other cities.

The following day, a SPARTAN-organised protest drew thousands in Riau,
Sumatra and 80 people in the central Javanese city of Semarang.

The SPARTAN protesters mostly came from the poor, organised through
the Indonesian Poor Union (SRMI), as well as some labour and students
activists. Protesters denounced the incumbent in the July 8
presidential election, Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, as a neoliberal
politician supported by foreign interests.

Agus Priyono, SPARTAN’s general coordinator, said that protests
targeted candidates who represent the political-economic system based
on the “Washington consensus”, which promotes policies that liberalise
trade, introduces “flexible” working conditions and a free hand for
investors. “Neoliberalism is actually an incarnation of neo-colonialism that was
fought against by our founding father, [former president] Sukarno”, he
said.

Electoral politics and neoliberalism

A decade of intense economic liberalisation has increased poverty,
unemployment, and environmental destruction. Almost half of Indonesia’s
230 million people live on less than US$2 a day. Thirty-seven million people are unemployed and thousands of children
suffer malnutrition.

The destruction of national industry, both in
agriculture and manufacturing, goes hand-in-hand with big business’s
plunder of Indonesia’s economic resources, through legal and illegal
means. Deforestation for timber production, mine expansions and fossil fuel consumption have increased drastically in this period.

Most people are not aware of the cause of the situation. Nor do they
see the link between the degradation of their lives and their electoral
choices. This is the product of decades of repression and de-politicisation
under the 1965-98 Suharto New Order dictatorship. This has been made
worse by the illusions and image manufacturing that have dominated
electoral politics since 1999.

Until the rise of neoliberalism as an issue in this year’s presidential
election, previous electoral contests did not involve a contest between
pro-people policies versus pro-capital ones.

However, the bitter truth is that this development is not directly
caused by any advances for progressive and democratic forces. Rather,
it comes from a conflict within the oligarchic elites. This
specifically involves Prabowo Subiyanto, a retired lieutenant-general
who commanded the notorious Kopasus elite troops involved in the
kidnappings and killings of pro-democracy activists in 1998.

Lately, the content of Prabowo’s speeches are almost identical to the
arguments of progressives in recent years. This is both the way he
explains the nature of neoliberalism as well as, to a degree, the
proposed economic solutions.

Prabowo is running for vice-president with the presidential candidate
Megawati Sukarnoputri in this election. Is his populism an illusion,
considering that Megawati carried out a neoliberal agenda when she was
in power between 2001-2004?
Only time will tell.

Then there is the presidential candidate Jusuf Kalla, now
vice-president, who talks more moderately about a national
self-sufficient economy and promotes programs to strengthen domestic
capitalists and weaken foreign capital’s domination. He comes from Suharto’s Golkar party. His running mate is Wiranto, the
armed force chief from 1997 to 1999 and repsonsible for serious human
rigths violations — most well known the massacres in East Timor in
1999.

This camp represents an alliance between a sector of Indonesia’s
capitalist class with military elements dating from the New Order
dictatorship. However, Kalla’s openess, determination, and egalitarian appearance has
drawn support from critical cultural figures and a handful of
activists.

Facing them is the incumbent Yudhoyono. His running mate is
Budiono, the head of the central bank and the International Monetary
Fund’s trusted economist who been a key to implementing economic
liberalisation.

Armed with the image of being a more “civilian” former general, with a
gentlemanly manner, committed to anti-corruption and from a simple
farmer family, Yudhoyono seems to be in the best position to implement
a neoliberal agenda. The Economist described him in a March 24 article as “a champion of the foreign investors”. Under Yudhoyono’s administration, 44 state-owned companies were sold at discount prices to foreign buyers in one year.
He is notorious for the explosion of debt during his administration,
which rose at the highest rate in Indonesian history, $8 billion a
year.

Under Yudhoyono, Indonesia has also been active in endorsing trade liberalisation at a global as well as regional level.

His financial backing and image appealing to Indonesia’s feudal past has resulted in Yudhoyono leading various polls.

Not surprisingly, various mid-sized political parties, including the
religious fundamental ones, have opportunistically supported Yudhoyono.
As the incumbent, he is also able to use the state apparatus for his
benefit.

Economic bribes, such as the Direct Cash Assistance and Rice for the
Poor programs, that were usually with the neoliberal austerity
programs, have been used by Yudhoyono as a sign of his “generosity”.

Neoliberalism and human rights

This reality has caused confusion among progressive groups. Most
human rights NGOs, mostly foreign-funded, support Yudhoyono because
they believe that his human rights record is the least bad when
compared to Prabowo or Wiranto.

This is despite Yudhoyono being directly involved in the July 27, 1996
military attack against Megawati that killed dozens of people. He
served in occupied East Timor in the 1970s, when serious human rights
abuses occurred. His administration has not shown any serious commitment to solve past
human rights cases. Violations of human rights, including economic,
social and cultural rights, intensified during his term.

The price of basic goods increased more than 100% and fuel subsidies
have been cut three times. His administration’s response to the global
economic crisis, transferring the burden onto the poor majority,
reflect Yudhoyono’s loyalty to neoliberialism.

Those on the left that have been campaigning against neoliberalism
are faced with the dilemma that there are no ideal candidates. Some
choose to remain uncontaminated by any connection with the political
elites by calling for a boycott — risking isolation from the majority
of people who accept the current electoral process.

The April legislative elections recorded an abstention rate of 40%. But
this does not imply, as this section of the left believes, an active
boycott against the representative system. Studies have showed that abstention occurred mostly due to political
indifference or technical problems, such as a lack of sufficient
information.

Moreover, a boycott by some sections of the urban middle-class cannot
stop the widespread belief, tied to the huge campaigns and money
politics, that exercising the periodic right to vote is the “best
possible way” to relate to politics as the economic situation
deteriorates.

The various left positions can be into three broad categories.
First, those that do not intervene in order to prevent “ contamination”
from the elites. This argued on ethical grounds — very debatable ones.

Second, those who intervene by rejecting all candidates, on the
grounds they all have bad human rights records and represent the
interests of capitalism. This is the position of a limited section on
the left and it tends to benefit Yudhoyono in practice.

Third, those who focus their attack against the most obvious
representation of neoliberalism, Yudhoyono, while remaining critical of
the other candidates. For this sector, intervening in the elections is a way of promoting,
and seeking to organise around, anti-neoliberal policies.

This is what
the SPARTAN-organised protests have sought to do.

Supporting this view, the National Liberation Party of Unity
(Papernas) has said that Yudhoyono’s rivals who speak against
neoliberalism still have to prove that they are not just “thieves who
shout thief”.

Anti-neoliberalism cannot be demonstrated only through debates and
advertisements, but through concrete measures such as the
nationalisation of the oil and mineral industry, cancellation of
foreign debt and a national industrialisation program.

Anshar Marulu, SPARTAN’s coordinator in Makassar, challenged these candidates to support and join the anti-neoliberal mass.